If you can’t stand Tim Tebow, here’s the good news: This will be the last Tebow-related piece I write until at least August, barring some unforeseen incident involving a trade or the Rapture.
The bad news is that it’s going to be another long one.
The Denver Broncos’ improbable run ended Saturday at the hands of a Patriots team that dominated Denver in every phase of the game. So, too, ends Tim Tebow’s storied season, but not without leaving several questions needing to be revisited sometime in 2012.
1. By what specific set of criteria, if one exists, may Tebow satisfy his critics?
Tim Tebow’s harshest critics—just like his strongest supporters—remain resolute in their opinions despite any evidence to the contrary. But how many of his detractors can honestly say that he didn’t exceed the level of success they anticipated? Recall that Denver had gone 5-16 in its previous 21 games before Tebow got the starting job for good in Week Seven of 2011.
I would wager heavily that the critics would have gladly accepted the following proposition back in October: “If the Denver Broncos win the AFC West and then win a playoff game with Tim Tebow as their quarterback for that entire span, then we can rightfully call Tebow a successful and effective professional football player.”
Yet, many of those same people will now say things ranging from “Tebow will never start another game in the NFL” to “Tebow is still the worst quarterback in the league.”
Tebow’s future seems uncertain at best (see below), but his critics have been very consistent in following up each defeat with proclamations that they’ve been definitively proven right in their assertion that he has no future in the NFL. They’ve met his successes with temporary silence and eager anticipation of his next stumble. I would like for someone on that side of the argument to list a set of criteria that Tebow could meet that would “prove” him to be a “success.”
That way, if Tebow wins ten games next season and throws for 3,000 yards, or, say, wins a couple of Super Bowls down the road (which I personally think would be very unlikely), these journalists won’t have to bother embarrassing themselves any further by continuing to move the rhetorical goal line such that Tebow could never cross it.
Continue reading →
The Take-home Message from the SOPA Debate
Tracking the political discourse regarding SOPA proved to be quite instructive in ways I hadn’t anticipated. My own view on the proposed bill was that, while the aims weren’t entirely bad, some of the presumptions in the law overreached in ways with which I wasn’t comfortable. For example, shifting the burden of policing to websites rather than the copyright holders and allowing those sites to be blocked in their entirety if they run afoul of SOPA is problematic. Concerned about just how broad that might be applied, I opposed the new law on those grounds.
If the anecdotal evidence I amassed from political and tech blogs (plus social network postings) is any indication at all, the evolving conventional wisdom about the bill held that SOPA was an assault on “free speech” advanced by large, powerful, agenda-driven corporations. The opposition, by contrast, were egalitarian everymen who were trying to stop these corporations from stifling innovation and having even more control over the lives of the common people.
There was a very small kernel of truth in there somewhere. There were undoubtedly large IP holders who saw SOPA as a way of protecting some of their most valuable commodities against further piracy by scaring file-sharing services of all kinds out of business. However, what opponents seemed to miss was that this was in no way a battle between large corporate interests on one side and the common man on the other. In fact, it was a battle between those who profit from IP (artists, rights-holders, the Hollywood lobby, etc) and those who benefit from loose IP restrictions (Facebook, Google, Yahoo, AOL, pirates, etc).
Continue reading →
Share this: